Heliocentrism an Anti-Christian Hoax?

If you had a big tube, or a really tall smokestack that was not being used, to where you could look straight up and see stars, regardless if was
day or night, and you looked through it every exact revolution of the earth, the stars would stay pretty much in the same place all year.

Have you actually ever tried this? Because, you know... it doesn't actually work. Again, if your
model doesn't exhibit retrograde motion as it is currently observed, then your model is wrong. If the model doesn't fit the observable facts,
you're back to the drawing board on the model. This is how science works, friend.

Whether smokestacks work or not is beside the point. OK, make it a nice radio astronomy antenna array, where you can make a fix on a
particular spot so far away that there is no discernible movement, and you designate it as " a fixed location". Then, every time that fixed location
is directly centered in your antenna array, which always stays pointed in one direction, you put the location of Mars on a graph. What I am saying is
that if done this way, Mars would not retrograde on your graph. Retrograde is caused by the speeding up and slowing down of Mars. When compared to a
zodiac moving, sometimes it beats the zodiac, and sometimes it falls behind. Mars does not turn around and go back, the earth goes into a different
position in relationship to the sun, causing your observation point to change its angle. This phenomenon happens, whether the earth orbits the sun, or
the sun orbits the earth, it does not matter which one it is, it has to do with an uneven orbit of Mars that causes it to slow down and speed up.

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
Assuming the universe is infinite would that not mean that everything is at the exact centre of the universe?

Everything, to you, is at the
center. Infinite is more a concept that a reality because it does not relate to us on a practical level. Your own universe is centered on you. Any
other way of thinking of it is of no use to you.
Why would you care what the universe would seem to be, to some hypothetical "other"?
Our spirit associates with a location specific to that particular spirit. Do we defend that location, in order to perpetuate the existence of that
spirit to physical bond? We should and why, because it defines our universe.

sigh - all onserved comets orbit the sun - why do they do this if the sun has near zero mass as you claim
google " sun grazers "
it is your claim that the earth is at the centre of your alleged geo-system - so explain why comets dont orbit the earth - its a simple question
you claim every other body in your allehed geosystem orbits the earth - why not comets ?

Ok, search engined it.

This comet was found to have passed just 200,000 km (0.0013 AU) above the sun's surface, equivalent to about half the distance between the Earth
and the Moon.

en.wikipedia.org...
If the sun had mass, then don't you think it would pull something so close, right into it, instead of just letting it go on it's way? The sun gives
off radiation and particles, and makes things like comets observable, but that does not necessarily mean they cause them. If you know otherwise, go
ahead and present your evidence.

This comet was found to have passed just 200,000 km (0.0013 AU) above the sun's surface, equivalent to about half the distance between the Earth
and the Moon.

en.wikipedia.org...
If the sun had mass, then don't you think it would pull something so close, right into it, instead of just letting it go on it's way? The sun gives
off radiation and particles, and makes things like comets observable, but that does not necessarily mean they cause them. If you know otherwise, go
ahead and present your evidence.

It's called conservation of energy and angular momentum. Seriously, your understanding of even the basic concepts of physics is really woeful.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Whether smokestacks work or not is beside the point. OK, make it a nice radio astronomy antenna array, where you can make a fix on a particular spot
so far away that there is no discernible movement, and you designate it as " a fixed location". Then, every time that fixed location is directly
centered in your antenna array, which always stays pointed in one direction, you put the location of Mars on a graph. What I am saying is that if done
this way, Mars would not retrograde on your graph. Retrograde is caused by the speeding up and slowing down of Mars. When compared to a zodiac moving,
sometimes it beats the zodiac, and sometimes it falls behind. Mars does not turn around and go back, the earth goes into a different position in
relationship to the sun, causing your observation point to change its angle. This phenomenon happens, whether the earth orbits the sun, or the sun
orbits the earth, it does not matter which one it is, it has to do with an uneven orbit of Mars that causes it to slow down and speed up.

Yes, beside the point... except that it was wrong. Nowhere have I suggested that Mars is actually "turning around and going back", as you put it.
Only that it appears to do so in a way that is consistant with a heliocentric model of the solar system.

I'll ask one more time, because you've ignored it the last two and I figure everyone deserves three chances: show explicitly how the model you've
presented would result in retrograde motion of Mars being observed from Earth. And, since you've now brought it up, show proof that the velocity of
Mars changes significantly enough to results in the observance of retrograde motion.

show explicitly how the model you've presented would result in retrograde motion of Mars being observed from Earth. And, since you've now
brought it up, show proof that the velocity of Mars changes significantly enough to results in the observance of retrograde motion.

I didn't
make up the Mars speed thing. I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, not being an astronomer. I read that at an astronomy website while searching
around for information to be able to ague one way or the other on the subject. It said it right on the site; the retrograde of Mars is caused by it
slowing down on part of its orbit, in turn caused by the shape of that orbit. So I am just going with accepted scientific fact.
As for models, I am not a 3D animator. I make models for video games but they are buildings that don't move. I spent four days familiarizing myself
with an animation program to learn how to make a reasonable representation of the relationship between the sun's orbit and Mars' orbit. A lot of what
I did was hand placing the objects and letting the program interpolate the movement between those positions. There is another way to make a orbit for
mars in that program, which is to make an algorithm that would determine its position at different times. I don't know what that would be or how to
determine what it should be.
I did experiment trying to create a retrograde and what I found out is that you can not, either way, geo or helio centric, if Mars is going at a
constant speed, which is as far as I got with my abilities with that program.
Fell free to spend some time with it. I used Art of Illusion because it is free. It's a little bit of a pain to use if you are not already well
acquainted with animation. I am busy making static objects and may go back at some time to mess around with animation for a video game when I get to
that point.
As for smokestacks, that is not something I made up either, and learned it in science class back in pre-Apollo days, so go talk to my teacher if she
is still around.

Originally posted by iterationzero
It's called conservation of energy and angular momentum. Seriously, your understanding of even the basic concepts of physics is really woeful.

That's a real persuasive argument, resorting to personal attacks. (sarcasm)
So, a tiny little object made from a snowball has a speed high enough to give it more mass than the Sun?
Use your physics skills to formulate that for me, you know, to help my understanding.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I didn't make up the Mars speed thing. I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, not being an astronomer. I read that at an astronomy website while
searching around for information to be able to ague one way or the other on the subject. It said it right on the site; the retrograde of Mars is
caused by it slowing down on part of its orbit, in turn caused by the shape of that orbit. So I am just going with accepted scientific fact.

You seem to be confused what all this talk about retrograde motion is about. It doesn't really have anything to do with the mars slowing down during
it's orbit.

Here's something to illustrate it:

I fired up Stellarium(www.stellarium.org...), centered the view on mars and started going forward in time in jumps of 7 days until I
found what I was looking for. The next real-world example of mars retrograde motion will start in november 2011. if you were to take a picture of it
at the same time of the day in 7 day intervals for a couple of months, you would get an animation something like this:

img833.imageshack.us...
The dates, times and an assortment of other fun facts are visible in the animation for your convinience.

If you compare Mars's position to that of the stars, Mars seems to slow down, stop, reverse direction, stop again, and reverse direction again.

This occurance happens at the same time Mars is at it's closest to Earth (check the magnitude of mars in that animation, you can see it climb to -1.2
and then drop again. Distance drops and climbs, too).

What is this witchcraft?! Well, the heliocentric model explains this quite elegantly. I tried to write a cool explanation with my own words, but I
found my skills in that area to be lacking, so here's a cool, informative, youtube video instead:

I'd love to hear what the geocentric eplanation is for the apparent retrograde motion of mars during it's closest approach to Earth. And no, an
eccentric orbit doesn't explain it.

Originally posted by iterationzero
It's called conservation of energy and angular momentum. Seriously, your understanding of even the basic concepts of physics is really woeful.

That's a real persuasive argument, resorting to personal attacks. (sarcasm)
So, a tiny little object made from a snowball has a speed high enough to give it more mass than the Sun?
Use your physics skills to formulate that for me, you know, to help my understanding.

You're right, and I apologize. It was late when I posted that and the tone of that sentence was uncalled for. That being said, all of the information
you'd need to understand something like why comets don't go crashing into the sun is in a basic physics text. By way of analogy, if we were having a
discussion of the differences between the gospels and by my questions it became increasingly obvious that I hadn't read any of them, I would expect
you to tell me to go read them before we continued our discussion. When you talk about a direct conversion of velocity to mass, it suggests that you
haven't read a physics text.

In short, the angular momentum of a comet, primarily derived from its velocity, is high enough that it can overcome the effects of gravitational
attraction between it and the Sun. If it were moving slower, it would, as you suggest, be pulled into the sun because its mass is to low too provide
sufficient momentum on its own.

I didn't make up the Mars speed thing. I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, not being an astronomer. I read that at an astronomy website
while searching around for information to be able to ague one way or the other on the subject. It said it right on the site; the retrograde of Mars is
caused by it slowing down on part of its orbit, in turn caused by the shape of that orbit. So I am just going with accepted scientific
fact.

Link to the site? I'd like to read it.

As for models, I am not a 3D animator. I make models for video games but they are buildings that don't move. I spent four days familiarizing
myself with an animation program to learn how to make a reasonable representation of the relationship between the sun's orbit and Mars' orbit. A lot
of what I did was hand placing the objects and letting the program interpolate the movement between those positions. There is another way to make a
orbit for mars in that program, which is to make an algorithm that would determine its position at different times. I don't know what that would be
or how to determine what it should be.

Then you're admitting the video you presented is inaccurate, so you can't really use it to back up your model (I mean "model" in the sense of a
hypothetical framework) without the math. And I'm not even saying that you have to generate the math on your own. Just provide me with a reference
that has the math and isn't immediately refutable by the laws of physics.

I did experiment trying to create a retrograde and what I found out is that you can not, either way, geo or helio centric, if Mars is going at
a constant speed, which is as far as I got with my abilities with that program.
Fell free to spend some time with it. I used Art of Illusion because it is free. It's a little bit of a pain to use if you are not already well
acquainted with animation. I am busy making static objects and may go back at some time to mess around with animation for a video game when I get to
that point.

I'm not sure how you can make the claim that you can't show retrograde motion with geo- or heliocentric models when I posted a link to videos
generated by astronomers that clearly shows it occurring!

As for smokestacks, that is not something I made up either, and learned it in science class back in pre-Apollo days, so go talk to my teacher
if she is still around.

I'm not suggesting that you made these things up, but just because you heard it doesn't mean it's true and it's not really a valid excuse for
parroting things that are known to be false. At the company I work for, when I want to generate a new piece of technical literature, it has to go
through a process called "rationalization". It's essentially peer-review - I have to be able to provide a citation for any assertion made and I'm
expected to fact-check my own work before the process even begins.

Then you're admitting the video you presented is inaccurate, so you can't really use it to back up your model (I mean "model" in the
sense of a hypothetical framework) without the math.

Yes, that's one way to describe it. My video was meant to make something unthinkable,
thinkable, by seeing it.
I was having trouble making a good picture of it in my mind because of how well trained it was in me to see everything happening in the way I was
taught.
It was not meant to be accurate, exactly because it would be very difficult to have a scale model where everything is in real dimensions. I had to
make arbitrary decisions about how to size things just to have it fit on a screen and be able to see anything. It is a tool to change your thinking
just enough to be able to have a starting point to eventually make some sort of rational determination.

But ive had many times a situation in my life were i know someone was watching over me'

At times like that, in my personal
experience, I got as far as thinking, "Oh, this is getting serious!" There was some sort of intervention of an angelic nature in those times, despite
not having made what you would normally think of as a prayer. The fact is that everyone dies, and the question is where do you go after that. The Old
Testament says you go to your ancestors. A lot of other cultures believe the same thing.

I made a video which is really just a very fast slide show from a bunch of images.
I decided I wanted complete control of where things were so I did this the tedious way.
What this shows is one explanation of how Mars would speed up and slow down.
I created a center for the orbit, then kept a constant angular velocity. Where the orbit is smaller, the planet slows down because it has less ground
to cover to go through the same degrees in respect to the center.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Where the orbit is smaller, the planet slows down because it has less ground to cover to go through the same degrees in respect to the center.

But this is exactly the opposite of what happens in the real world. Ever hear of "conservation of angular momentum"?

First look at linear momentum. Push an object and it will keep going in a straight line unless some other force acts upon it to speed it up, slow it
down, or change its course. So the momentum is constant unless something acts on it to make it not constant.

Likewise with angular momentum, it is constant unless something acts on it to make it not constant. Here is an animation demonstrating that principle
and since the two objects are of equal size, you can see the rotate around each other (so it's a neutral demonstration that doesn't assume either
the earth or the sun at the center of an orbiting system).

when the distance to the center of rotation increases the angular velocity goes down

No matter what is at the center, this law will be followed, you can do demonstrations at home to prove it. And as you can see, the objects rotation
slows down when they are further apart and speed up when closer together, exactly the opposite of what your animation shows.

Actually there is a constant over time, it's the area swept out by the rotation per unit time as explained in that link.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Where the orbit is smaller, the planet slows down

Here is a video of a home demonstration (actually it looks like a high school lab) you can
do to prove to yourself you have it exactly backwards, note when the objects are closer, the rotation speeds up.

Angular momentum demonstration

This is the same law of physics figure skaters use when they pull their arms in to speed up their rotation.

I made another video with the Sun put into the previous drawings.
This is how I think it would have to work, if geocentrism is correct.
Sometimes Mars is very far away, and sometimes it is closer to us than the Sun.
For that to be true, and also to have both the sun, and mars orbiting Earth,
Their orbits would have to cross, or overlap.
This video shows how it could happen without them running into each other,
or seeing Mars crossing in front of the Sun.
The video I posted last month does not make it clear enough because it
only shows part of the orbit.

I do seem to remember that, now that you mention it. A diagram on the
blackboard at school, where an imaginary string sweeps across the circle, or whatever, and given an equal amount of time, the area inside the portion
of the circle that was swept is equal to all the other areas that were swept in that same amount of time. So I probably need to change the timing on
my representation of Mars.

You've got it, that's the one. It's encouraging you aren't trying to rewrite the laws of physics if you accept that fundamental truth about
orbits. However, even after you fix the speed variation in Mars in your anmation, I don't see how your animation shows the retrograde motion in
MacAnkka's animation:

Originally posted by MacAnkka

Does your video purport to show that retrograde motion somehow? Before or after you fix the mars conservation of angular momentum issue? Stellarium
shows variation in the apparent size but the illustration it makes of the apparent brightness doesn't seem to match the numbers it shows for
brightness, but I see how your model will account for brightness and size changes in Mars. But I still don't see how your model accounts for the
retrograde motion shown in that animation. Does it?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.